W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Initial value of 'flex' should make flexible boxes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:16:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCa8HWrkDkqhxEzs9mfiV0hRctsJi5+KfniBsj8yo2FzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:08 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 04/20/2012 04:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, I see. That makes sense. How about if the main size computes to auto,
>>> and flex has its initial value (whatever that winds up being), flex also
>>> computes to auto? That way turning on flexbox would give you flexing by
>>> default, but if you set an explicit width it respects that instead?
>>
>>
>> That then breaks things like vertical flexboxes used solely for
>> alignment, where you want the heights to shrinkwrap like normal,
>> unless you again explicitly turn off flexing (or explicitly set
>> "height:min-content;").
>
>
> Well, if we had an alignment property that worked on block boxes,
> you wouldn't need to use flexboxes solely for vertical alignment.
>
> Using flexbox for vertical alignment is about as intuitive as
> using display: table-cell, imho.

If my precise example bothered you, imagine that you have a vertical
flexbox where only the first is flexible, pushing the rest to the
bottom.

In this case, still, your suggested behavior would require either
explicitly shutting down flexing on the other boxes, or explicitly
setting them to "height:min-content;", same as the horizontal case.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 21 April 2012 00:17:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT